[REWORK, flow, who is Ajay satpute!! Put facts in context and in flow] Merely Attaching Trailer Do Not Invalidate Driving License for Tractor Driving : Bombay High Court

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently observed that a permanent licence holder having an effective valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods.

The single judge bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was hearing an appeal filed by the widow and two children of a deceased tractor driver against the judgment dated April 10, 2019, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court at Chandrapur where the court only made the owner of the vehicle liable to pay compensation and exonerated the Insurance company from any liability.

The court referred to Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act and stated, "a licence is provided to drive specific types of motor vehicles; a person with a valid driving licence to drive a specific type of vehicle does not lose the ability to drive that vehicle just because a trailer is added to it."

"Merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used to carry goods does not render the licence to drive a tractor ineffective; otherwise, every time an owner of a private car who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods on it, the light motor vehicle becomes a transport vehicle and the owner is deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle," the Court pointed out this.

The deceased was employed with the owner of the vehicle as labour where he was getting Rs.5200. On 10.5.2014, the deceased was employed and was operating a tractor with a trailer. Ajay Satpute operated the tractor in a zigzag pattern, due to which the deceased, who was sitting in the tractor, fell down on the road where he sustained multiple injuries and died.

Claimants contended before the commissioner Labour Court, that the death was due to rash and negligent driving and therefore claimed Rs.4,72,842 with interest @12% per annum and 50% penalty as compensation. They also contended that both the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company should be jointly liable.

The owner of the company admitted the ownership of the vehicle while stating that there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle.

The insurance company also denied the claim on the grounds that the tractor's driver did not have a valid driver's licence and the vehicle's owner did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

The Commissioner ordered the vehicle's owner to pay the amount and exonerated the Insurance Company. And therefore the claimants have filed an appeal before the present bench against this judgment.

Adv. Madhur Deo, counsel for claimants stated before this bench, "that Commissioner erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from satisfying the liability and there was no breach of policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation."

Counsel for the owner of the vehicle, S.S. Ghate submitted that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation because the vehicle was validly insured with them. No one appeared for the Insurance company, herein respondent no.2

The bench while hearing both sides referred to a judgment of the apex court of Nagashetty vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and Others and held that:

"He was driving a tractor which had a trailer attached to it and was being used for carrying goods at the time of the accident, it cannot be said that the tractor was being used as a goods vehicle for driving which the driver had a not valid licence."

Accordingly, the bench allowed the first appeal and made the Insurance company liable to pay also pay compensation to claimants.

Case Title: Chabu @ Chayatai Vasanta Kodape vs Balaji Wasudeo Somankar

Statute: Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923